A resolution to condemn the targeted Killing of United States Citzen's (Con) I am Anwar Awlaki.

I hold a senior position within the ranks of Al Qaeda. I have directed attacks,
many of them successful against the US. I am a US citizen.

The United States rides a curtain of solidarity of domestic tranquility and peace. The threats that may cause harm to the people are skirted when referenced in the hypothetical. However, when the object of our fears becomes real and manifests its self, we scramble for every shred of cover possible. Many of us understand who this man was and understand what he stood for. The possibility of attacks turned into a very real happening with Ft. Hood, and the Farouk incident. Thus, the government took the correct steps to maintain the peace. Thus, I stand before you urging the negative vote on this legislation. I bring before you three main points to illustrate the sanity of my position. 1) The bill in itself is poorly worded and unfit to actually address the situation 2) The government is held, in social contract, to protect its citizens 3) Intelligence constantly changes With regard to my first point, the writers fail to recognize the nature of threat against the sovereign soil of this country. In the bill itself it declares the targets of American counter measures to be on international soil and in asylum. Thus, any action that is plotted and accredited to any aggressor is automatically looked upon as an act of military or international aggression. Not a domestic act of terror, According to Barron's Law Dictionary. Therefore, it is the right of the military to systematically assess and deal with threats that may manifest, via its own methodology, tribunals. When any citizen fleas the country and seeks asylum and sanctuary in a foreign country he automatically forsakes and protection to American Law and justice. Thus, lines 3-5 are baseless in regard to the bill. My second point up holds the idea that the government provides for the common defense for its citizens. When a threat is identified in an international setting the threat is neutralized. The duty of government is to uphold its commitment to hold in safety its residents. Thus, the use of targeted killing to protect citizens is justified. The aggressor, be it a citizen, has taken upon himself an act of war and is treated in the according fashion, as a combatant on the field of war. According to the Rules of Engagement, defense is to be provided for when an entity is transgressed. An act of war, as defined by the Cornell Law Dictionary states in part C in item 4: armed conflict between forces of any origin. A formal declaration of war is not required. Thus, the government works within its war powers to provide protection to its citizens. Finally, my third contention deals with the constant procurement of information. This information aides in the identification process of threats against the US. Thus, with the knowledge gained the government is well within its power to react accordingly to a identified threat.

With these reasons, I urge the negative vote, as targeted killings hold a secure place within the protection of the domestic tranquility.